by NewKid » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:09 am
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Uh, NewKid, I usually admire the way you think, but you need to check the batteries in your smoke alarm...<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Of course, Kissinger knows the war on terror is coming; that's what I meant by saying the clash of civilizations. But Kissinger says even less than counterterror pundits who much earlier were accusing Bin Laden. Kissinger doesn't say it's Bin Laden there. And as Forgetting2 notes, neither does Bush or the neocons. So I don't think anyone knew exactly who was going to take the fall at that point. The neocons have been itching to have Saddam responsible for terror since WTC 93, and they continue to make the argument that Saddam and Bin Laden are connected well after 9-11 and well after everyone knows it's crap. (Remember the Atta/Iraqi connection in Prague, Steven Hayes' book, the Connection, etc.) The neocons instantly said on the morning of 9-11 -- see if it's Saddam, even after the Bin laden narrative was forming in the public mind. There's ample record of the neocons being totally uninterested in Afghanistan and Bin Laden both before and after 9-11, so it strikes me as very unlikely the neocons were happy with the instant claiming of this as the sole work of Bin Laden.<br><br>My guess, and again, it's only very loose speculation, is that there was some sort of an agreement beforehand to have either both Iraqi and Bin Laden patsies or more likely, cross over Patsies who could be what Atta in Prague wasn't, i.e., working for both Saddam and Bin Laden (possibly out of the Oklahoma city ring that Moussoui and some of the other hijackers mixed with -- remember, neocons love to talk about these guys for Oklahoma 95) and the neocons got double crossed at the last minute on game day. <br><br>So to say Kissinger knows how all that's going to play out in advance I think is foolish. How could he know that? He's not on the phone with anybody all morning; he's giving a speech in Germany. So my guess is Cheney and Rummy are pushing very hard to get Bush to say it is or might be Saddam, and Clarke and Tenet are saying no, it's Bin Laden, and Bush is having a semi nervous breakdown trying to figure out what to do that day (perhaps with Condi, channelling George Schultz, serving as mediator). <br><br>Cheney: "Mr. President, we're working on finding out what's happened to your security detail, in the mean time, don't say who it is, but we think it's Saddam."<br><br>Clarke/Tenet: "No Mr. President, we're working on finding your fighter escort, but it looks like Bin Laden, Mr. President."<br><br>Cheney: "No Mr. President, it's Saddam, and it looks like he's targetted Crawford."<br><br>So who the hell knows, but I don't think anybody watching the reaction that day, including Kissinger, knew exactly how it was going to play out. <br><br>That explains why Kissinger makes such a broad list of suspects as well, even after the day of 9-11.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>listed Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya (and possibly other countries) as countries to be targetted.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 6/25/06 7:44 am<br></i>
